05-25-94 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MAY 25, 1994 easement for a driveway. However, that property does have frontage on LaBore Road. Morelan asked if the City could address its concerns such as liability issues, the possibility of requests for development on other abutting lots, etc. The City Attorney replied that the City could address these issues in a recordable document. However, there is nothing that would preclude a court from finding that the City would have to grant another variance if a similar one was requested. The Attorney reported that State Statute says a variance can be granted only if the standards in the ordinance have been met. Morelan pointed out that State 5tatute indicates that a variance cannot be economic in nature. The Attorney again stated that concerns about liability and maintenance issues can be addressed in a Hold Harmless and License Agreement. Scalze pointed out that the owners of Lots 8 and 9 are not precluded from making a similar variance request. The Attorney replied that the City would have to have a good reason to deny such a variance, or a court order could be issued compelling the City to grant the variance. Pedersen pointed out that at that point the City could order the improvement of Lake Street. Morelan noted that the City would have to prove benefits received. The Attorney indicated that benefits received would have to be proved at any point that the road improvement is made. The Attorney also indicated that State Statutes say that property owners cannot force a City to install public utilities. Pedersen again suggested that should the City receive another variance request, the road improvement could be ordered, and the cost of the improvement assessed against the benefitting property owners. The Attorney agreed that this would be an option 8